The recent instance where NDTV— a Delhi based news channel has sued television measurement company TAM India and its parent firm Nielsen and Kantar for over a billion dollars in the Supreme Court of New York for alleged manipulation of TV ratings puts a big question mark on the credibility of the much-vaunted TRP ratings that news channels hanker after. Media reports indicate that in the past too, TAM India has resorted to such unethical manipulations with its officers taking bribes and presenting distorted ratings. In its 194-page lawsuit dossier, NDTV is seeking compensation to damages amounting to $580 million.

The lawsuit NDTV filed mentions that using a small sample size and low turnover, the organization has resorted to make manipulators in the “People Metres” installed in over 8,000 respondents’ houses. It has also been alleged that TAM staff offered to multiply and give higher TV ratings for NDTV in just two or three months provided NDTV was willing to grease their palms.

While it is indeed refreshing that NDTV has blown the whistle against such errant practices and for this, in its first place, NDTV should be congratulated, but simultaneously it is also imperative to look at two other facets. First— the well known fact that the TRP ratings are manipulated and lack credibility. Secondly and following from the above, despite being known for its manipulative nature and discrepancies, TRPs are of utmost importance for a television channel. Otherwise why would NDTV have bothered to file a legal suit and expose the country’s only television measurement company? It is certainly not entirely because of its avowed journalistic mission.   

Ever since the advent of the era of globalization, liberalization and consequent free market economy, which started in the early 1990s of the last century when path-breaking economic reforms were unleashed by the then Finance Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, the emergence of private TV channels has led to the dramatic evolution in the Indian media industry. On one hand people were no longer compelled to restrict themselves with Doordarshan’s Government version but on the other hand, the stiff competition among the private players at the same time had given rise to an unhealthy competition. In their mad rush to give the ‘news’ first, news channels started airing footages and presenting facts and figures without properly scrutinizing them. Reporters have become no longer reluctant to even concoct fake stories just for the sake of feeding content to their channels for 24 hours. The recent instance where a reporter of a Guwahati based satellite channel owned by a powerful cabinet Minister in the Assam Government can be cited as a classic case in point of such instance. It would, however, be wrong to put the blame entirely on the electronic media, for the print too has resorted to such means by publishing advertorials or by publishing the version of certain vested sections under the impression that this is the unbiased version of the newspaper. Readers would do well to know how a Kolkata-based regional daily during the Beltola incident published the semi-naked picture (that was only partially blacked only to avoid legal action) of a girl only to increase its circulation.

By emphasizing on the above, we are not even remotely trying to undermine the commercial aspect of the media. It is beyond doubt that for an industry to survive revenue must come and in this context especially for a region like Assam where Government advertisements are scarce, revenue must come in the form of advertisements sponsored by private organizations. But that should not in any way indicate that the said channel or newspaper will not point out the wrongdoings of the advertisement-sponsored organization. To stem the prevalence of unethical vices in as far as employees are concerned, managements of media organizations too have to play an important role. They should give the employees a decent salary— sufficient to sustain so that to earn extra money they do not indulge themselves in unfair means. We are not suggesting that mere hiking the salary will stop a section of unscrupulous journalists from treading the wrong path for we have said long ago that all saints have not become journalists but it will at least encourage some people with good integrity and an effective value system in place to come and join this industry. It is also required that the people subscribe to news papers with low circulation. This is because newspapers with low circulation do not usually earn lot of advertisements so their possibility of being biased and propagating vested interest is ruled out to a great extent. The same holds true of news channels. However, it appears difficult for news channels as most of them are owned by unscrupulous people or people with vested political links.  

In the ultimate analysis, we wish to reiterate that when the whole world is changing and where corruption is ruling the roost, it would be total absurdity to assume that only journalists will remain insulated from this but at the same time journalists would do well to note that this is not a profession but a mission to deliver that must be reflected on the canvas of democracy and gel well with its cause. It is imperative that present day journalists remember our tradition linked with media, when visionaries like Mahatma Gandhi and Bal Gangadhar Tilak started newspapers to inform the public about the callousness of the British raj and some of which must continue even today. Therefore, it is important that the journalists today remember this and that the media evolved thus, with this attitude in its backdrop.

W hen the Congress failed miserably in 18th Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly elections, Sonia Gandhi gave the excuse that it was because there were too many leaders in the field meaning that there were too many conflicts of interest for the party to come on top. It isn’t that there were too many leaders. The real reason is that there were too many castes, each vying with the other, the Party itself having no powerful vision to keep them all together. The hard fact is that, as the saying goes, where there is no vision the people perish, as do parties. The Congress has only Sonia Gandhi. The same party also had a Gandhi. In the twenties and thirties of the 20th century- it was the Mahatma who could keep all the other leaders at bay including Subhas Chandra Bose, among others. Even Indira Gandhi had her competitors but she could hold her head high. She had to face Atulya Ghosh in West Bengal, Sanjiva Eeddy in Andhra Pradesh, Nijalingappa in Karnataka, and SK Patil in Bombay, not to speak of K Kamraj in Tamil Nadu. But she had a vision. The 1971 Parliamentary elections turned into a referendum on her leadership. Her battle cry was garibi hatao (banish poverty). The country was mesmerized. Her party captured 352 seats or 70 more than the undivided Congress had managed to win four years earlier. Several opposition leaders were practically wiped off. That tells its own story. Clash between leaders within a party is not unusual. In the late 19th century, Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Bal Gangadhar Tilak fought it out. It is not that Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel were always in agreement. But Patel had the grace to give in to Nehru in the larger interests of the nation. For Patel, the party was above his personal ambition. Neither the Congress nor the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) today has an acknowledged and unchallengeable leader. That is bad for each party but the danger lies in the fact that it is more harmful to the country. And it is giving way to fissiparous tendencies that can spell disaster to the nation. When the Centre comes to be ignored and foreign leaders like, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, goes to Chennai to meet Jayalalitha and to Kolkata to hold talks with Mamata Bannerjee one must listen to the ringing of alarm bells. Hilary Clinton was marginaliszing the Centre and if this continues, the unity of the country must be considered to be in grave jeopardy. Mrs Clinton should have been firmly told that she can hold talks only with the Government of India and not with State satraps. One reason why corruption has grown is because coalition partners at the Centre have come to feel that they can, like the JMK-do as they want to. The 2G scam was nothing short of blackmail. Here again, the blame lies on subaltern parties and blind caste oriented groups that cannot see beyond their noses. To Karunanidhi, his mind and heart does not figure beyond Tamil Nadu, nor does Mamata Bannerjee’s go beyond West Bengal. For Mayavati India is Dalit, Dalit India and there the matter ends. It is said that leaders are not made but are born. That is telling half the truth. In many ways it is time that proclaims the man, as when Winston Churchill replaced Neville Chamberlain as Britain’s Prime Minister. Churchill was a confirmed and vicious India hater,but so far as his own country was concerned he proved his mettle. And much the same can be said of General Charles de Gaulle in France. One may argue that India is under no imminent danger and that is what makes our subaltern state leaders fight among themselves. That is a poor argument. Are our leaders so thoughtless that they don’t realize that fighting among themselves for the acquisition of power ends the essential unity of the country? What is worse is our state leaders thumbing their nose at the Centre, and going their way. The Indian constitution is neither ‘federal’ nor purely ‘unitary’. It is a happy mixture of both. Wisdom suggests that in the larger interests of the country, the states must willingly and graciously accept the fact that the country and not the states-comes first. Sadly this is not appreciated by some of our state leaders who with selfish reasons of their own are not willing to let the Centre pass the National Counter Terrorism Bill on the questionable grounds that establishing law and order is a state subject. Unfortunately terrorism is not confined to a state: it is a cross country  phenomenon and should be taken as such and that is where the Centre comes in. Presently the Centre is weak- in fact, very weak but taking advantage of that on certain vital issues would not be in  the interests of the nation. As one commentator recently noted, the view that the states should be more powerful rests on the assumption that the Centre is undemocratic and virtue resides in state governments. But does making the Centre weaker help the nation as a whole? Take the case of Naxalism. According to the Asian Centre for Human Rights, the creation of a Division within the Ministry of Home Affairs is absolutely inadequate to respond to the Naxalite problem. What it wants is the creation of a separate ministry to handle Naxal problems. Such a ministry should look into, among other things, ways of developing Naxal affected states in line with the Ministry of Development of Northeastern Region. Naxalism is spread across states, there should be coordination in working out plans to fight it and this can be done only by a Central ministry with, naturally, the cooperation of all states involved. If each state goes its own way to fight Naxalism it can only create a confusion worse confounded. This is a point that the Mamatas, Jayalalithas and Patnaiks, to name a few Chief Ministers may do well to remember. Taking advantage of a weak Centre may sound clever but we do not need any longer to have Nizams of Hyderabad or Nawabs of Bhopal or Arcot to break up the country. When will our politicians ever learn from history? Once the Centre is weakened, one can be assured that the Hillary Clintons of the world will come over to woo our state satraps and history will be repeated. This is a warning to all political parties: do not help weaken the Centre. It is not in the nation’s interests and in the end it will not be in the interests of the states either. Could it be that the time has come to give a second look at our constitution? There is much to be said in favour of a strong unitary government at the Centre.

MV  Kamath